Lance Williams v. Sharp , 696 F. App'x 239 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LANCE WILLIAMS, No. 16-17105
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-02542-GEB-KJN
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SHARP, Correctional Officer,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Lance Williams, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay the
filing fee after revoking his in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status because he had three
strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. We have jurisdiction under 28
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1118 n.6 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.
The district court properly revoked Williams’ IFP status because at the time
Williams filed the complaint, he had filed three actions that qualified as “strikes,”
and he did not plausibly allege that he was “under imminent danger of serious
physical injury” at the time he lodged the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g);
Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1763 (2015) (“[P]rior dismissal on a
statutorily enumerated ground counts as a strike even if the dismissal is the subject
of an appeal”); Belanus v. Clark, 796 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2015) (dismissal
for failure to state a claim because claims were time barred properly counted as a
strike); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing the
imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-17105